For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.
What does the "genuine-ness" of the other person matter in terms of whether the idea should be judged on it's own merit or not. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it, regardless of whether the other person is being genuine or not genuine.
> "making some rules that benefit themselves"
You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.
Considering that in 1990, China had 750 million people under the poverty line and in 2016 (latest World Bank figures I could find with a quick google search) that number is 7.2m million. Clearly, the policies aren't entirely aimed at benefiting CCP with slight citizen benefit as a secondary thought. Or else maybe the CCP's incentives are very very well aligned with lifting people out of poverty.
> It's a pretty typical tactic
I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.
> if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again
but you don't know it's your cousin online talking to you. Therefore, what happens is that anyone who speaks against your preconceived notions must be working for the shadowy government to spread "propaganda".
> If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.
and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.